if some things that exist do not have a cause...

if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. The existence of an uncaused God would thus render the simple cosmological argument unsound, and so useless as a proof of the existence of God. Each of the two forms of cosmological argument discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmological argument presented above.

Each of the two cosmological arguments discussed here draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason why the existence of the universe stands in a need of an explanation while the existence of God does not. Each therefore evades the objection outlined above. In the case of the kalam cosmological argument, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time.

Everything that has a beginning in time, the kalam cosmological argument claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above. In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e.

that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not contingent but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above. Each of these two forms of the cosmological argument, then, evades the objection introduced above in a distinct way.

The two arguments are therefore distinct, and so warrant individual assessments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument The temporal, kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig. Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God.

The existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation.